Religious institutions should transcend the division between pacifying and advocacy roles
In the realm of religious freedom and human rights advocacy, a distinct division between peacemaking and advocacy has often proven counterproductive. This article explores the reasons behind this, the practical implications, and concrete solutions for a more integrated approach.
The Counterproductive Distinction
Treating peacemaking and advocacy as separate activities can lead to contradictory outcomes. Community-level reconciliation may provide immediate safety and restored relations, yet fail to address the legal or structural drivers of persecution. On the other hand, rights-focused legal wins may overlook social relationships and cultural protections, undermining the durability of freedom of religion in practice.
Faith-based peacemaking aims to transform relationships and reduce violence through recognition, empathy, and practice of faith commitments. However, these impacts may not register in legal or policy indicators used by advocacy actors. Conversely, legal protections (laws, policies, heritage safeguards) are necessary but insufficient without cultural recognition and restored social trust.
When organizations signal that they only do “peacemaking” or only “advocacy,” they risk siloing expertise, missing opportunities for mutual reinforcement, confusing donors and local communities, and excluding vulnerable groups who need both safety and systemic change.
Practical Implications
In practice, mixed or opposing incentives, measurement and funding gaps, legitimacy and protection trade-offs, and operational silos can hinder the effectiveness of religious freedom work. Actors focused on short-term stability may deprioritize evidence-based rights claims that could provoke backlash, while rights actors may push strategies that escalate conflict without parallel reconciliation work.
Concrete Solutions
To address these challenges, it is recommended to adopt integrated program design, develop joint theories of change and shared indicators, cross-train staff and create multidisciplinary teams, use sequencing and contingency planning, build joint narratives and messaging, fund integration, protect cultural heritage as an explicit pillar, and engage local leadership and plural coalitions.
For instance, pairing immediate protection (legal assistance, safe relocation) with parallel reconciliation work that addresses grievances and restores social ties can be effective when a community faces persecution. Joint monitoring of changes in both the legal environment and social indicators can also help adapt strategy.
Limitations and Trade-offs
Integration requires more time, funds, and skilled staff. Not every organization can do everything, so partnerships are often necessary. Some contexts demand prioritizing immediate protection over systemic advocacy, so sequencing matters and may mean temporarily privileging peacemaking for safety.
The modern discipline of peacemaking was developed by Mennonites, Quakers, and Brethren churches and universities. National and international Christian institutions often have separate commissions or departments dedicated to advocacy and peacemaking. However, it is crucial for these institutions to reconsider this dichotomy for more coherent and strategic public engagement.
Peacebuilding and advocacy fall on a spectrum and are complementary, sometimes intertwined disciplines. Both peacemakers and advocates have the same goal: to ensure that evangelical Christians and churches can fulfill God's calling and that all citizens' rights and dignity are respected.
In conclusion, the integration of peacemaking and advocacy is a significant step towards more effective religious freedom work. This article was first published on the site of 21Wilberforce and re-published with permission. The team is currently partnering with those suffering persecution, providing psychosocial support, equipping leaders with peacemaking tools, and advocating for justice. Christian institutions are called to reconsider their approaches to ensure a more coherent and strategic public engagement.
Education and self-development are essential for both peacemakers and advocates in religious freedom and human rights work. An integrated approach that combines peacemaking and advocacy can lead to more effective personal growth, as it allows for a comprehensive understanding of the social, legal, and cultural drivers of persecution.
Moreover, ongoing education on the interconnectedness of peacemaking and advocacy can help individuals involved in religious freedom work to develop a holistic perspective, fostering collaboration and mutual reinforcement among organizations, donors, and local communities. This extensive knowledge base facilitates the protection of vulnerable groups who need both immediate safety and lasting systemic change.
